Skip to main content

Full text of "Robert Mangold"

See other formats






The Solomon R. Guggenheim Foundation 



Peter 0. Lawson-Johnston 

H. H Arnason 

Eleanor, Countess Castle Stewart 

Joseph W. Donner 

Henry Allen Moe 

A. Chauncey Newhn 

Mrs Henry Obre 

Daniel Catton Rich 

Albert E. Thiele 

Michael F. Wettach 

Carl Zigrosser 

Stephen Antonakos and Naomi Spector, New York 

Donald Droll, New York 

Mr. and Mrs. Herbert Fischbach, New York 

Dan Graham, New York 

Philip Johnson, New Canaan, Connecticut 

Sol LeWitt, New York 

Brice Marden, New York 

Mr. and Mrs. John Lee Sherman, Roosevelt, New Jersey 

Mr. and Mrs. Robert A. M. Stern, New York 

Mr. and Mrs. Herbert Vogel, New York 

Ruth Vollmer, New York 

Mimi Wheeler, New York 

The Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum, New York 
The Museum of Modern Art, New York 
Whitney Museum of American Art, New York 

Published by 

The Solomon R. Guggenheim Foundation 

New York, 1971 

All Rights Reserved 

© The Solomon R. Guggenheim Foundation, 1 971 

Library of Congress Card Catalogue Number 74-183750 

Printed in the United States of America 


~ 1" " » 

^Wi ... < 


• t 


. . * hfc^. Bsown_Wa& 1 964 '-) " * •■— . . 

., Oilonft/ood;^5?96-' • ' ^ ...... < 

s** — pourtsfeyfiaphbaqh ffiajler^. ■*$ ~~« 

V- ._ 'Mew York » ~-<-vt> 

• u . * LI fi <- 

^ ' r j *■:.■• -i . *. 


/ ■- 

V " ■ i -> 





..• - 



- - 








Gray Window Wall. 1964 
OiLorf'wood, 96 x 90". Destroyed 





I would like to thank the many individuals who 
have helped me with the preparation of this exhibi- 
tion, especially the staff of the Fischbach Gallery. 
I would also like to express my appreciation to 
Linda Shearer and Beverly Liftman of the 
Guggenheim's staff, both of whom have aided 
with the various stages of the catalogue and the 
exhibition. I am, of course, most particularly 
grateful for the rewarding experience of working 
with Robert Mangold on this occasion. 


In the wake of Abstract Expressionism, painters 
and sculptors maturing during the early sixties 
focused on issues that were in profound 
opposition to the first generation New York 
School. This in no way constituted a rejection of 
fifties painting; indeed, there was considerable 
admiration on the part of younger artists 
for the work of their predecessors. Nonetheless, 
the accomplishments of the fifties were more 
or less complete and offered little for future 
development but the prospect of dreary eclec- 
ticism. Where the Abstract Expressionists had 
realized a painting as a unique experience— the 
result of a series of mystical confrontations- 
younger painters of the early sixties were 
pragmatic in their approach to art. For both the 
Pop artists and the so-called color abstraction- 
ists, the blank canvas no longer functioned as the 
void. It served instead as the final state, the 
receptacle for ideas that were carefully consid- 
ered and worked out well in advance of 
confronting the canvas. Area replaced arena, the 
metaphysical was renounced in favor of rational- 
ism. Key phases of fifties painting were 
rendered obsolete: the attitude of crisis, the 
belief in working every portion of the canvas, the 
documentation of the act of painting were 
inconsequential to sixties painting. Brushwork 
and gesture, the immediate and intimate contact 
with the canvas were replaced by an attitude 
which considered craft unimportant or undesir- 
able, preferring industrial techniques and an 
impersonal surface. Of course, neitherthe 
Abstract Expressionists nor their younger 
counterparts held consistently to these condi- 
tions; the Abstract Expressionists were as 
rigorously conceptual as their younger counter- 
parts, who were far from impersonal. If the 
Abstract Expressionists cultivated chance inci- 
dents to activate their paintings, this was offset by 

concepts which, if not as rigorously prede- 
termined, were, nonetheless, very much a part of 
the act of painting. Accident, while not used as 
such by the Minimalists, still informs the best of 
their art, where the inconsistencies account for a 
large measure of their fascination. In their 
common approach to art, both the Abstract Ex- 
pressionists and the younger artists mitigated the 
sterility of the absolute by means of the vitality or 
excitement caused by the unexpected. Never- 
theless, in the final analysis, there was in fact 
a profound ideological shift in emphasis from one 
generation to another. Precedents existed, 
however, even within the New York School, 
in the work of Barnett Newman, Ad Reinhardt, 
and Mark Rothko. For the Minimalists the 
White on White series of Malevitch and 
Rodchenko's constructions were equally crucial, 
if less immediate, influences. 

The Minimalists, of whom Robert Mangold 
is a nominal member, shared a passion for 
geometric forms, using the triangle, rectangle 
and square, the circle and cube. Their basic 
component units were repetitive rather than 
hierarchical, forming a composition often 
arrived at by arithmetic means which avoided a 
fixed center of interest. They preferred a singular 
rather than fragmented image that could be 
apprised immediately. Far from absolute in their 
final result, the Minimalists managed to intro- 
duce a fair amount of illusionism (Judd) into 
sculpture, poetry into stacking, piling, aligning 
(Andre), theater into static forms (Morris). 
Like the other Minimalists, Mangold's work 
differs considerably from the larger definition of 
the group. While the quintessential character 
of his work falls decidedly within this ambience, 
his work benefits from the unexpected nuance 
and especially from the subtle arrangements 
of color that are a significant departure 
from the geometry of his forms. 

The paintings that Mangold exhibited in his 
first one-man show at the Thibaut Gallery in 
New York in January 1964, shortly after he had 
received his M.F.A. from Yale, consisted of 
amorphous but unobtrusive forms, faintly curvi- 
linear in disposition. Looking like fragments of 
larger forms, and inherently directional, they 
existed in a tense but ambivalent relationship 
with the static, frontal identity of the ground. 
Mangold's need to realize the paintings as 
objects soon led him to the addition of bolts, 
moldings, and other projections, and in 1964-65, 
in a group of works that he called Walls, to the 
use of relief. The walls, of sprayed oil on wood, 
appeared on the verge of breaking into free- 
standing environments, a direction that he 
soon repudiated. More significantly, the first 
paintings of 1 963-64 had indicated, in their use 
of curvilinear figures, a fondness for shape that 
Mangold realized in a more satisfying context 
in his Area paintings of 1 965-67. In a work like 
Warm Gray Area, 1965-66 (cat. no. 2), for 
example, Mangold confined the activity to the 
edges of the canvas and simultaneously accom- 
plished several objectives that had eluded 
him in the work of 1 964. By eliminating the 
figure-ground relationship of the earlier paintings, 
he could stress the dynamics of the image as an 
overall unitary structure which was perfectly 
in keeping with his assertion of the painting as an 
object. He further amplified this by cutting away 
at the contour of the canvas support and 
relating the painting as an object to the wall. 
Like Frank Stella, whose aluminum paintings of 
1 960 were an important influence, this procedure 
enabled Mangold to permit the wall to function 
as a part of the painting and subvert geometry. 
For Stella it was the logical consequence of 
his configuration — the stripe, which reached its 
ultimate conclusion when he cut away the center 
of his canvas. In Mangold's work this was 

systematically reinforced by splitting his canvas 
in two, the resulting seam acting as an incisive 
division of the image. Unlike Stella, Mangold 
has never relied on the thickness of his stretcher 
bars to accentuate the object quality of the 
painting. Instead, he has used a single color per 
painting or one color for several paintings to 
stress the reality of his structures. 

In the paintings of 1 965-66, Mangold 
featured a type of color gradation which, al- 
though monochromatic, was considerably varied 
in nuance. As the artist has expressed it, he 
was interested in avoiding certain obvious types 
of color relationships and was especially con- 
cerned with a type of color that was featureless 
—no color rather than naming colors, as Kelly 
has remarked about his own work. For Mangold 
the most overriding concern isforform to 
which color is related, although color in itself 
remains important; in this respect he is closerto 
the Minimalists and Stella than to Kelly. Using 
an airbrush allowed Mangold to circumvent the 
hand that was so prominent a feature of Abstract 
Expressionism, and to present a featureless, 
anonymous surface— a particular characteristic 
of sixties painting and sculpture. Anonymity 
of surface, of course, is not a denial of choice, 
and Mangold's color is ultimately as intimate and 
personal, if not as opulent or as easily available 
as de Kooning's more seductive marriage of 
color and pigment. But neither is his color 
representative of the banal juxtaposition of much 
geometric abstraction. As it appears in these 
early paintings of Mangold, color is both hue and 
tone, often imbued with a pearly opalescence 
that permits the maximum light and light refrac- 
tion to occur. Mangold's paintings were nothing 
if not subtle in their effects, and totally 
at variance with the retinal phenomena 
of Op art, in vogue at that time. 

Concurrent with the subtle quasi-chromatic, 
quasi-tonal relationships that Mangold estab- 
lished in these paintings were the divisions of his 
canvas, derived from butting and notching, 
which were often off-center and certainly never 
very aggressive or dynamic in their configuration. 
Ashe has explained: 

Have used the 4-foot width of sheets of building 
material as a working element, a piece whose 
total size is 96 x 96 inches (2 4-foot by 8-foot 
sheets), would have a vertical division occurring 
in the middle, the division becoming a black line 
at this point. Chose not to allow the panel break 
to occur, except at the measured center, 
keeping it from becoming a proportional- 
compositional division. Visually, the central black 
line gives the eye a neutral point to move 
through the surface, bringing the periphery line 
inside, preventing a too simple contour reading 
and preventing the surface itself from becoming 
too illusionary. i 

In this respect, Mangold differed from the Minimal 
sculptors, for their emphasis on symmetry and 
standard units was somewhat at variance with 
his liking for irregularity within symmetry. 
Too, Mangold has shown little inclination to stress 
the attractive qualities of materials, an important 
consideration for the Minimalists, or to stress 
the materiality of paint, as has Robert Ryman, 
another painter who figured prominently among 
the Minimalists. Mangold has consistently 
qualified his shape, earlier by notching or seg- 
menting it, and more recently by warping or 
distortion. We remain aware, however, of the 
completed shape and thus retain the geometric 
figure from which the final form was derived. 

I.The Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum, New York, 1966, 
"Work Comments, 1965-66," Systemic Painting, p. 25. 



Installation view, exhibition Fischbach Gallery, 
New York, October/November 1 970 

Yellow Wall Section I. 1 964 

Oil on wood, 96 x 48". 

Courtesy Fischbach Gallery, New York 

Mangold's paintings of 1 965-66 were flat 
cut-out forms of masonite-faced plywood which 
offered him a resistant surface that he preferred 
to the pliant give of canvas. By using an assertive 
material like masonite, Mangold could con- 
tinually call attention to the surface. He decided 
on a spray technique to achieve an atmospheric 
quality enabling him to blend color and tone. 
The gradations of tone occurred at the lower edge 
of the structure and were purposefully kept 
subtle to allow the form to dominate-a surface 
which expanded and dissolved. Mangold was 
primarily concerned with evasive color which was 
difficult to pin down or define. This could best 
be achieved with an oil paint which blended 
easily, unlike acrylic, and by the spray technique 
which permitted a refining of the form rather 
than serving as a vehicle for color. As Mangold 
has said, "Color sequence is either (going from 
top to bottom), neutral moving into color, color 
moving into neutral, or from lighter to darker value 
of the same color. Where it is a neutral to color 
or color to neutral sequence, the value of 
the two tones is similar. "2 In all instances, the 
modulation served to reiterate the edges. 
While the Walls made reference to architecture, 
the Areas alluded to patches of sky, the space 
between two buildings, or a wall. Mangold 
worked with both symmetric and asymmetric 
forms, diptych and polyptic arrangements and in 
1 966, began to introduce the curve. The curve, 
which formed the lower edge of the painting, 
is a segment of a circle, whose geometry 
Mangold preferred to either organic or elliptical 
forms. The fragmentation of a known form, 
implying continuation into space, suggested a 
limitless field. 

Initially Mangold used a quarterora half 
circle. He retained the sprayed oil surface that he 

first developed in 1964 but his color became 
less atmospheric as he curtailed the shift in hues 
in favor of tonal gradation of one color. Mangold's 
use of the spray gun can be seen as an extension 
of the Minimalists' interest in depersonalizing 
the mark, but he has managed to produce a 
surface that is highly individual if not self- 
expressive. In 1 968 Mangold decided to use a 
roller and acrylic paint and his color became 
considerably more intense. This procedure 
eliminated the subtle tints, the discreet shading 
from tan to brown, the carefully neutralized edge 
of earlier paintings. While still characteristically 
restrained, the newer colors were far more 
opaque and appeared to have a dense texture 
resembling a skin that was far more consistent 
with the precision of his geometric forms 
than any atmospheric color would have been. 
By confining pictorialism to the structure of 
the painting, Mangold could, as in the earlier 
notched paintings, minimize the importance of 
line and eliminate any figure-ground relationship, 
such as occurred in his paintings of 1963. 
This in turn prevented any inordinate fluctuation 
of space and denied any possibility of a positive- 
negative spatial confrontation from taking 
place. As if to reinforce the implacable presence 
of the shape, Mangold switched from evasive 
color to more agressive color. While more 
opaque and considerably more intense, the pig- 
ments were still subdued, enhancing form rather 
than advancing color in and of itself. Mangold 
accomplished this by repeating the same form in 
several colors, as if to deny the uniqueness of a 
particular hue in relation to a particular form, 
and by choosing tones which are muted rather 
than pure, even when he had used a primary 
(blue) or a complementary (green) color. The 
effect is monotonal, rather than monochromatic. 

2. ibid. 

Initially the circle, or sections of the circle, 
enabled Mangold to develop an alternative to 
the notched form, and to affect variations on a 
geometric form without pushing geometry into 
sterile formulas. Gradually, however, 
Mangold began to complicate the circle. Where 
he had built out his rectangles, adding a 
part here, subtracting there, he began to sub- 
divide the segments of a circle into smaller 
units. These units retained an interior consistency 
which the earlier additive (notched) paintings 
lacked. While maintaining the relationship 
between shape and the wall, Mangold could 
elicit a series of images that in no way interfered 
with his denial of the image-ground relationship. 
These canvases, based on V, W or X configura- 
tions allowed Mangold to return to a form of 
drawing which did not lose their hold on the wall. 
The series, in turn, was complemented by another 
group of works, entitled Frames, in which 
Mangold literally cut away the center of his paint- 
ing while still holding the frame as shape. In these 
paintings, the wall assumed a greater, and cer- 
tainly more active role than in his previous paint- 
ings. Because Mangold has always been 
concerned with illusionism, or a form of illu- 
sionism that was best expressed by stressing the 
reality of the painting as an object, this series 
enabled him to expand upon this idea. He does 
this by contrasting the principle of the frame as 
the painting with the spatial implications of the 
frame leading into the pictorial space which 
ordinarily was occupied by the central part of the 
image. The earlier ambiguity of color, in the Area 
paintings, was replaced by the ambiguity of 
shape, whose contours, while emphatic, did not 
fulfill their expected role. 

In subsequent works, Mangold has again 
considered the circle, this time as a distorted 
figure warped to conform to an irregular square, 
and the manipulation of an X configuration within 
a group of rectangles whose dimensions vary 
considerably from one to another. Like his 
discreetly sprayed colors, the warping and 
bending are subtle and their variations minute in 
quality. Mangold's emphasis on a serial imagery 
since 1969 has enabled him to diminish the 
importance of a single painting and emphasize 
the visual harmony of a sequential arrangement. 
In his recent X-Series drawings of 1 970, for 
example, he grouped 15 works in 5 sets of 
three, each "x" identifying the rectangle. The 
rectangle itself varied significantly from group to 
group. Similarly, in his Distorted Square-Circle 
series of 1 971 , he has contrasted a "real" or 
true square whose dimensions are 60 x 60 x 
60 x 60" (cat. no. 21 ) with "distorted" squares 
which, to cite one example, measures 60 x 60 x 
63 x 63" (cat. no. 22). Nevertheless, the end result 
is a group of serial works in which geometry is 
subverted by an infraction of the rules of order. 
Mangold is not only questioning the way we 
see but gracefully manipulating form to new 
ends. By aligning his warped circles with 
the edges of the rectangle, at least in part, and 
by making his open frames both image and field, 
at least by implication, he has remained 
consistent in his adherence to the all-over 
image. But in this manipulation, he has proven 
that his approach is eminently flexible, and 
singularly open-ended. None of the dogma or 
ritual that informs much geometric or color 
painting is evident in his work. Rather, his paint- 
ings are introspective and contemplative. 
They are paintings of spaces and silences. 


Dimensions are given in inches; height precedes 
width; in irregularly shaped works dimensions 
indicate widest and highest points 


Manilla Neutral Area. 1965 

Oil on masonite and plywood 

96 x 96"; 2 panels, each 48 x 96" 

Collection Philip Johnson, New Canaan, 

Warm Gray Area. 1965-66 

Oil on masonite 

72 x 72"; 2 panels, each 36 x 72" 

Courtesy Fischbach Gallery, New York 

* Untitled. 1966 

Oil on masonite 

24 x 24" 

Collection Donald Droll, New York 

"Not illustrated 


4 Cool Gray Area with Curved Diagonal. 1 966 
Oil on masonite 

96 x 96"; 2 panels: 96 x 48", 83 1 A x 48" 

Collection Philip Johnson, New Canaan, 

5 Light Neutral Area. 1 966 
Oil on masonite 

48 x 52" 

Collection Mr. and Mrs. Robert A. M. Stern, 
New York 


i«j* . ' 







• . 



6 1/4 Manilla Curved Area. 1967 

Oil on masonite 

72 x 72" 

Collection Mr. and Mrs. Herbert Fischbach, 
New York 

7 1/2 Blue-Gray Curved Area (Central Section). 

Oil on masonite 

72 x 72"; 2 panels, each 36 x 72" 
Courtesy Fischbach Gallery, New York 

.ul. CL 


8 1 /2 Manilla Curved Area (Divided). 1 967 
Oil on masonite 

48 x 1 92"; 4 panels, each 48 x 48" 
Collection Donald Droll, New York 

9 1 /2 Manilla Curved Area (Trisected). 1 967 
Oil on masonite 


Gift of the Friends of the Whitney Museum of 
American Art, New York 



10 * 1/2 Brown Circle Area. 1967 
Oil on masonite 

1 2 x 24" 

Collection Dan Graham, New York 

11 1/2 V Series. 1968 
Acrylic on masonite 

48 x 96"; 2 panels, each 48 x 48" 
Courtesy Fischbach Gallery, New York 

12 1 /2W Series. 1968 
Acrylic on masonite 

48 x 96"; 2 panels, each 48 x 48" 

Collection The Museum of Modern Art, New York, 
Larry Aldrich Foundation Fund, 1969 

1 3 V Series Central Diagonal I A. 1 968 

Acrylic on masonite 

48 x 72" 

Collection Mr. and Mrs. John Lee Sherman, 
Roosevelt, New Jersey 



1 4 W Series Central Section Vertical. 1 968 
Acrylic on masonite 


Collection Stephen Antonakos and 
Naomi Spector, New York 

1 5 Central Vertical (Blue) X Series. 1 968 
Acrylic on masonite 


Collection Mr. and Mrs. Herbert Fischbach, 
New York 

1 6 X Series Central Diagonal No. 2. 1 968 

Acrylic on masonite 

48 1 A x 96%"; 2 panels, each 48 x 48" 

Collection The Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum, 
New York 





17 X Paintings. 1969 
Acrylic on canvas 
5 paintings, each 60 x 40" 
Courtesy Fischbach Gallery, New York 

18 * 1 /2X Series. 1969 
Acrylic on masonite 
24 x 48" 

Collection Mr. and Mrs. Herbert Vogel, New York 

19 *X Series Central Diagonal I A & B. 1 969 
Acrylic on masonite 

2 panels, each 12x18" 
Collection Sol LeWitt, New York 

20 Untitled Frame Set A. 1 970 
Acrylic on masonite 

2 panels, each 72x36" 

Courtesy Fischbach Gallery, New York 


21 Green Distorted Square Circle. 1 971 
Acrylic on canvas 

Right and top: 60 x 60"; Left and bottom: 60 x 66" 
Courtesy Fischbach Gallery, New York 


22 Red Distorted Square Circle. 1 971 
Acrylic on canvas 

Right and top: 63 x 60"; Left and bottom: 60 x 63" 
Courtesy Fischbach Gallery, New York 


23 Curved Line X Set. 1 971 
Acrylic on canvas 
Two panels, each 48 x 30" 
Courtesy Fischbach Gallery, New York 


24 Straight Curved Line X Set. 1 971 
Acrylic on canvas 

Two panels, each 48 x 30" 

Courtesy Fischbach Gallery, New York 

25 * Straight-Curved-Bent Line X Set. 1971 
Acrylic on masonite 

1 7 x 22" 

Collection Dan Graham, New York 


26 W, V, X Series. 1 969 
22 1 /2x13 3 /4" 

Collection Sol LeWitt, New York 

27 Untitled. 1969 

3 drawings, each 39 1 /2 x27 1 /2" 
Collection Brice Marden, New York 

28 Untitled. 1969 

3 drawings, each 39Vz x 271/2 " 
Collection Mimi Wheeler, New York 

29 Untitled. 1 970 

30% x 44 1 /4 "; 2 sections, each 30% x 22 1 /a" 
Collection Ruth Vollmer, New York 

30 Distorted Circle-Square Series. 1 971 

1 7 x 30" 

Collection Mr. and Mrs. Herbert Vogel, New York 

'Not illustrated 


1937 Born in North Tonawanda, New York 

1 956-1 959 Studied at the Cleveland Institute of Art, Ohio 

1 959 Yale University, Norfolk, Connecticut, Summer 
Art Fellowship 

1 961 Yale University, New Haven, B.F.A. 

1 963 Yale University, New Haven, M.F.A. 

from 1 963 Teaching at the School of Visual Arts, New York 

1964-1965 Taught at Hunter College, New York 

1 968 Taught at Skowhegan Summer Art School, Maine 

1 969 Taught at Yale-Norfolk Summer Art School, 

1 970 Taught at Cornell University Summer Art School, 
New York 


By The Artist 

1 . "Work Comments/1965-1966," Systemic Painting, 

The Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum, New York, 1966, 
p. 25. 

On The Artist 

2. Battcock, Gregory, ed., Minimal Art: A Critical Anthology, 
New York, 1968. 

Introduction by Gregory Battcock; essay by Michael 
Benedikt (selected reviews slightly revised from "New 
York Letter" published in Art International, vol. 10, nos. 7, 
10 and vol. 11, nos. 1, 2, 4.) 

3. Kultermann. Udo, Neue Formen des Bildes, Tiibigen, 
Germany, 1969, pp. 337-39. 

4. Lippard, Lucy R., "Silent Art: Robert Mangold," 
Changing/Essays in Art Criticism, New York, 1 971 , 
pp. 130-40. 


5. Lippard, Lucy R., "Robert Mangold and the Implications 
of Monochrome," Art and Literature, no. 9, 1966, 

pp. 116-30. 

6. Lippard, Lucy R., "The Silent Art," Art in America, 
vol. 55, no. 1 , January-February 1967, pp 58-63. 

7. Bochner, Mel, "A Compilation for Robert Mangold," 

Art International, vol. XII, no. 4, April 20, 1968, pp. 29-30. 

8. Rosenstein, Harris, "To Be Continued," Art News, 
vol. 67, no. 6, October 1970, pp. 63-65, 82-83. 

One-Man Exhibitions and Reviews 

9. Thibaut Gallery, New York, January 4-25, 1964. 

New York Herald Tribune, January 1 1 , 1964. 
The New York Times, January 12, 1964. 
Ltawrence] C[ampbell], Art News, vol. 62, no. 9, 
January 1964, p. 19. 

J[ane] Hfarrison], "In The Galleries/Robert Mangold," 
Arts Magazine, vol. 38, no. 6, March 1964, p. 67. 
Lippard, Lucy R., "New York/Robert Mangold, Thibaut 
Gallery," Arttorum, vol. 11, no. 9, March 1964, p. 19. 
Fried, Michael, "New York Letter," Art International, 
vol. VII, no. 3, April 25, 1964, p. 58. 

10. Fischbach Gallery, New York, October 12-30, 1965. 

Canaday, John, The New York Times, October 16, 1965. 
Gruen, John, New York Herald Tribune, October 16, 1965. 
Bourdon, David, "Cool Obdurate Art," The Village Voice, 
October 21, 1965. 

Lippard, Lucy R., "Robert Mangold/Walls and Areas," 
Art News, vol. 64, no. 6, October 1965, p. 10. 
Benedikt, Michael, "New York Letter," Art International, 
vol. IX, nos. 9-10, December 20, 1965, p. 41. 
WTilliam] Bferkson], "In The Galleries/Robert Mangold," 
Arts Magazine, vol. 40, no. 2, December 1965, pp. 65-66. 

11. Fischbach Gallery, New York, Robert Mangold/Recent 
Paintings, November 4-30, 1967. 

Mtichael] BCenedikt], "Reviews and Previews/Robert 
Mangold," Art News, vol. 66, no. 7, November 1967, p. 60. 
Glueck, Grace, "Trend Toward Trendlessness/New York 
Gallery Notes," Art in America, vol. 55, no. 6, November- 
December 1967, p. 124. 

Mellow, James R., "On Art, The Means Becomes The 
Subject," The New Leader, January 15,1 968, pp. 29-30. 
Mellow, James R., "New York Letter," Art International, 
vol. XII, no. 1, January 20, 1968, p. 62. 
Ashton, Dore, "New York Commentary," Studio 
International, vol. 1 75, no. 896, January 1 968, p. 41 . 
Pincus-Witten, Robert, "New York/Robert Mangold, 
Fischbach," Artlorum, vol. VI, no. 5, January 1968, p. 59. 

12. Galerie Miiller, Stuttgart, March 23-May 3. 1968. 

13. Fischbach Gallery, New York, February 22-March 13, 


Mellow, James R., "New York Letter," Art International, 

vol. XIII, no. 4, April 20, 1969, p. 38. 

Wasserman, Emily, "New York/Robert Mangold, 

Fischbach Gallery," Artlorum, vol. VII, no. 9, May 1969, 

p. 67. 

14. Fischbach Gallery, New York, Robert Mangold: "X Series 
Drawings," April 25-May 14, 1970. 

Htarris] Rfosenstein], "Reviews and Previews/Robert 
Mangold," Art News, vol. 69, no. 4, Summer 1970, p. 64. 

15. Fischbach Gallery, New York, Robert Mangold/Recent 
Work, October 24-November 17, 1970. 

Linville, Kasha, Artlorum, vol. IX, no. 4, December 1970, 
pp. 81-82, 90. 

Ratcliff, Carter, Art International, vol. XIV. no. 1, 
January 1970. p. 27. 

Group Exhibitions and Reviews 

16. Cleveland Museum of Art, Cleveland, Ohio, 42nd Annual 
May Show, May 4-June 1 2, 1 960. 

17. Fischbach Gallery, New York, Hard Edge Painting, 
(Three-Man Exhibition with R. Kligman and Frank 
Lincoln Viner), December 18, 1962-January 12, 1963. 
Pteterson], Vfalerie], Art News, vol. 61, no. 9, 
January 1963, p. 19. 

D[onald] J[udd], Arts Magazine, vol. 37, no. 5, 
February 1963, p. 54. 

18. Fischbach Gallery, New York, According To The Letter, 
January 15-February 9, 1963. 
Announcement/Catalogue. Essay by Nicolas Calas 

19. The Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum, New York, 
Systemic Painting, September 21-November 27, 1966. 
Exhibition organized and catalogue essay by 
Lawrence Alloway. 

Pincus-Witten, Robert, " 'Systemic' Painting." Artlorum 
vol. 5, no. 3, November 1966, pp. 42-45. 

20. Yale University School of Art and Architecture, New 
Haven, Twelve Yale Artists, April 11-30, 1966. 

21 . Visual Arts Gallery, School of Visual Arts, New York, 
Working Drawings On Paper And Other Visible Things 
On Paper Not Necessarily Meant To Be Viewed As Art, 
December 2-23, 1966. 

22. Institute of Contemporary Art, University of Pennsylvania, 
Philadelphia, A Romantic Minimalism, 

September 1 3-October 11,1 967. 

23. New Haven Jewish Community Center, Primary 
Structures, October 29-November 4, 1967. 

24. The Lannis Museum of Normal Art, New York, 
Normal Art, November 1967. 

25. Ithaca College Museum of Art, Ithaca, New York, 
Selected New York Artists, 1967, April 4-May 27, 1967. 
Catalogue introduction by Harris Rosenstein. 

26. Emily Lowe Gallery, Hofstra University, Hempstead, New 
York, First Annual Exhibition, May 5-June 1 1 , 1 967. 
Catalogue introduction by Stephen S. Prokopoff. 
Catalogue. Exhibition organized by Max Kozloff. 

27. Bykert Gallery, New York, Group. May 16-June 17, 1967. 
Lippard, Lucy R., "Rebelliously Romantic," The New York 
Times, June 4, 1967. 

Jtoseph] Ktosuth], Arts Magazine, vol. 41, no. 8, 

Summer 1967, p.p. 58-59. 

HIarris] Rtosenstein], Art News, vol. 66. no. 4, Summer 

1967, p. 66. 

28. New Jersey State Museum, Trenton, Focus on Light, 
May 20-September 10, 1967. 

Exhibition organized by Richard Bellamy, Lucy R. 
Lippard, Leah Schlossberg. 

Catalogue Foreword by Edward Ring. Catalogue Essay by 
Lucy R. Lippard. 

29. Leo Castelli Gallery, New York, Benefit lor Experiments 
in Art and Technology, Inc., December 6-10, 1 967. 

30. Cologne Art Fair, Cologne, 1967. 

31 . The Larry Aldrich Museum of Contemporary Art, 
Ridgefield, Connecticut, Cool Art, January 7-March 18, 

1968. Catalogue introduction by Larry Aldrich. 

32. Jewish Museum, New York, Suites — Recent Prints, 
March 12-September 2, 1968. 


33. The Whitney Museum of American Art, New York, 
Recent Acquisitions, May23-June 16, 1968. 

34. The Larry Aldrich Museum of Contemporary Art, 
Ridgefield, Connecticut, Highlights ol the 7967-68 
Season, June 16-September 15, 1968. 
Catalogue introduction by Larry Aldrich. 

35. The Whitney Museum of American Art, New York, 
Artists Under 40, August 16-September 15, 1968. 
Catalogue text by Edward Bryant. 

36. Kunsthalle, Cologne, Kunstmarkt, October 15-20, 1968. 

37. Paula Cooper Gallery, New York, Benefit for the Student 
Mobilization Committee, October 22-31, 1968. 
Exhibition organized by Robert Huot, Lucy R. Lippard. 
Ron Wolin. 

38. Rhode Island School of Design Museum of Art, 
Providence, Art For Your Collection, December 5-22, 1968. 

39. American Federation of Arts, traveling show, 
Contemporary Drawings: Pop, Op, and Other Trends, 
December 29. 1968-November 22, 1970. 
Catalogue introduction by Max Kozloff. Catalogue 
foreword by George Weissman. 

40. Nurnberg Biennale, Nurenberg, Konstructive 

Kunst: Elemente und Prinzipien, April 18-August 3, 1969. 
Catalogue introduction by Dietrich Mahlow. 
Catalogue essays by Karin V. Maur, Max 
Mengerinhausen, Hans Bauer. Georg Nees. Gerald 
Klein, Fridhelm Klein, Jira Padrta, Zolenek Felix, 
Margit Staber, Jiri Kotalik, Eberhard Roters. 

41 . Vassar College Art Gallery, Poughkeepsie, New York, 
Concepts, April 30-June 11, 1969. 

Catalogue foreword by Russell Connor. 

42. Westmoreland County Museum of Art, Greensburg, 
Pennsylvania, Recent Trends In American Art, 
May25-July6, 1969. 

43. Fort Worth Art Center Museum, Fort Worth, Texas, 
Drawings, October 21 -November 30, 1969. 

44. Leo Castelli Gallery, New York, Art for the Moratorium, 
December 12-13, 1969. Announcement. 

45. Newark College of Engineering, Newark, New Jersey, 
Shaped Art. 1969. 

46. Museum of Modern Art, New York, Recent Acquisitions, 
October 24, 1969-May25, 1970. 

47. Rose Art Gallery, Brandeis University, Waltham, 
Massachusetts, Vision and Television, January 21- 
February22, 1970. 

48. Albright-Knox Art Gallery, Buffalo, New York, Modular 
Paintings, April 21-May 24, 1970. 

Exhibition organized and catalogue essay by 
Robert Murdock. 

49. Andrew Dickson White Museum of Art, Cornell University, 
Ithaca, New York, Summer Show, July 8-August 30, 1 970. 

50. 25th Anniversary Exhibition o/ the Skowhegan School ol 
Painting and Sculpture. Exhibition traveled to Colby 
College. Waterville. Maine, August 6-September 16, 1970, 
and Portland Museum of Art, Portland, Maine, 

October 20-November 29, 1970. 

51. Finch College Art Museum, New York, Finch College 
Poster Exhibition, October-November 1970. 

52. Chico Art Center, Chico. California, Drawing Exhibition, 

53. Marion Locks Gallery, Philadelphia, Concepts/Drawings, 
April 20-May21, 1971. 


Rudolph Burkhardt: nos. 1 , 4, 5, 6, 8 

Geoffrey Clements: no. 9 

John A. Ferrari: nos. 11, 13, 14, 15, 20 

Robert E. Mates and Paul Katz: nos. 2, 7, 16,21,22, 23,24 

All photographs in the text by Rudolph Burkhardt 


The Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum 


Administrative Assistant 

Curator ot Exhibitions 
Associate Curator 
Research Fellows 



Assistant Conservator 



Otficer, Public Attairs 

Membership Secretary 
Book Store Supervisor 

Assistant Superintendent 
Head Guard 

Thomas M. Messer 

Linda Konheim 

Agnes R. Connolly 

Susan L Halper 

Louise Averill Svendsen 

Diane Waldman 

Margit Rowell 

Carol Fuerslem 
Linda Shearer 

Penny Koleman 
Mary Joan Hall 

Orrin Riley 

Lucy Belloh 

Saul Fuerstein 

Robert E. Males 
Paul Kalz 

David Roger Anthony 

Dana Cranmer 

Robin M. Green 

Anne B. Grausam 

Miriam Emden 

John Rafferty 

Darrie Hammer 

Carolyn Porcelli 

Peter G. Loggin 

Guy Fletcher, Jr. 

Charles F. Banach 

Yolanda Bako 


2500 copies of this catalogue designed by Malcolm Grear 
typeset by Craftsman Type Inc. 
have been printed by Foremost Lithograph Co. in 
November 1 971 for the Trustees of The Solomon R. 
Guggenheim Foundation on the occasion of the exhibition 
Robert Mangold